Beautiful building isn't it? It is the European Court. You helped pay for it and it's the place where unelected judges are slowly introducing a federal law of Europe.
James Forsyth in the Spectator Coffee Shop posts about Lord Hoffman's attack on the European Court of Human Rights and he argues that the court has neither legitimacy nor the standing to interfere as it does in domestic law. But will that stop Europe attempting to encompass the UK into the EU spider's web? Of course not. It's up to our politicians to protest and make their thoughts known. From the article it doesn't seem as if the tories will be doing much either.
It's my belief that the Human Rights Act should be abolished and another more appropriate Act brought into place. The present Act protects criminals more than it protects law abiding citizens and that is just plain wrong.
Posts
26 comments:
The UK now finds itself in the position where it must accommodate EU directives and no longer has the authority to legislate for itself. The UK is no longer master of its own house. The UK will do what it's told.
In response to scunnert comment, I don't think that's going to happen, mark my words...no way, the European Union will live long...It was an ill conceived union/concept from its inception. Europe is too tribal in nature and culture to be able to co-exist in a union partnership forever. France is already showing its true colors...the rest of the union. will soon follow suit. Money talks, bullshit walks as we say on this side of the pond.
The UK is a special case in the Union, which fortifies my above point, their refusal to join the Euro frenzy was the first indication that trouble was looming in the long term horizon... Will teh UK do what it's told...not on my life they won't...The UK knows where it's interests lie...make no mistake about it... Their closeness to the USA could suddenly change, if they dscovered thier best interest lie elsewhere and we, in North America, are very well aware of it.
Now back to Subrosa....Should the human rights act be abolished...you bet it should...not only should be it called something else, it should be redefined. Same goes for the useless United Nations Body... It is so dated...The World has changed since 1945 and a new vision and new goals must be defined and persued...
ECHR is nothing to do with the EU.
The European Convention on Human Rights was drafted under the authority of the Council of Europe – not the EU, although all EU members subscribe to the Convention. It is not exclusive to EU members however as the Council of Europe is not a part of the EU – so, for example, Russia is a member and in theory must incorporate ECHR.
I know there is a body of opinion that regards ECHR as something that has been imposed on the UK by Europe but in reality the Convention was drawn up by British lawyers after WW2. Well, they they weren’t all British lawyers but the project was British-led. Having said that, there is no such thing really as ‘British’ law as you have tagged it. Scots law is very different to English and Welsh law in many respects.
The man in charge of the drafting of the Convention was Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, who was Deputy Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials. Scots by birth, he practiced law in England and became a Tory MP, ending up serving as Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor before being ennobled First Earl of Kilmuir. I always find something deliciously ironic in the fact that the architect of ECHR was a High Tory.
The difficulty I see with Lord Hoffman’s argument is that unlike most nations the UK has no equivalent of the Supreme Court because we do not have a written constitution and/or a bill of rights. If the UK had a written constitution i.e if the rights of citizens was codified in law then fewer cases would go to the European Court.
That is the underlying problem.
Good post Indy. May I ask though - can the UK unsubscribe from the convention? Can the UK legislate contrary to EU directives? Can Scotland - or Wales for that matter - legislate contrary to UK directives? Sure we have some devolutionary slack, but the bulk of the legislation in Scotland emanates from Westminster just as 75 - 80% of UK legislation originates in the Council of Ministers.
Baron - the majority of Brits are spineless, effeminate, knicker sniffers
: 0 )
Sorry but it was hardly peaceful protest. If people are silly, people are bound to get hurt in the process sadly You can hardly blame to police in this instance.
Click to rate Rating 168
- , Perth, 5/4/2009 16:34
Sub
Was that You?
Different International "courts" have been used to impose decisions that could never be voted through in many different countries individual legislatures.
Most, like the ECHR were founded with noble aims in mind, but like all forms and wings of any type of Government, they fail to serve their purpose if the necessary checks and balances are not in place.
Where to begin? Indy clarifies a number of important facts: the European Union's has the European Court of Justice - the Council of Europe the European Court of Human Rights. Easy to get them mixed up - but we must be clear: the Council of Europe issues no directives a la European Commission, while the European Convention on Human Rights contains very little economic material.
I'm happy to listen to criticism - in some respects, there are interesting problems surrounding the legitimacy of international human rights courts, the scope of their opinions and so forth - but what gets my goat is that the criticism operates at such a general level.
For those who want the Human Rights Act 1998 abolished - excising the ECHR's basic force in domestic law - if you want a replacement, what would I say? What particular article in the Convention do you object to? How do you imagine it could be any more precise so as to avoid whatever prompts your objections?
I agree it has "interfered" with domestic laws (or a cosy absence of law as has often been the case in matters raised against the UK) - but then, many of these laws have been hardly terribly admirable. So it is simply vanity, then, the democrat's jealous sense of entitlement to monopolise all moral authority? Do you believe there are any other legitimate bases for public action but the will of the greatest number (or for that matter, how many craven MPs can be whipped into a room and ordered to nod right or left?).
All of these issues are implicit in a critique of the ECHR and its Court. Substantiate a bit more, and I might find the dissent a little more interesting.
Of course, if you want supra-national rights then you need a supra-national body to interpret these rights, so unless supra-nationalism per se is objected to then the objection to ECHR is usually regarding the liberal attitude of the court to the application of these rights.
Of course, this is an inherent problem with the kind of loosely-defined rights contained in ECHR; what they mean in practical terms comes down to the judges.
Thus in crude terms the debate is all about the politics of the judiciary versus the politics of the critics - it's as much a political as legal debate.
My own personal politics objects to things like compensating prisoners for slopping out - much as government should endeavour to end the practice - and to that extent I object to ECHR.
Indy I didn't say the ECHR had anything to do with the EU. I said we all helped pay for the building, true or not?
I'm fully aware England and Scotland have separate legal systems in various matters, I didn't know it related to the HRA. My fault, I quoted from the Spectator, naughty me.
I doubt if fewer cases would go to the EC, the way this country runs at the moment, it appears legal aid lawyers run there are the first sign of problems.
Right Lallands how about the state pension for starters? Why can't British pensioners be brought into line with other Europeans? Surely any self respecting country would return a livable pension to those who have worked for 40+ years ( or in my case still have to work).
You may be of the opinion that I should have saved for my old age. I did. Until 25 years ago I was unable to move a company pension, that is if I was luck enough to be offered one.
Now I'm left with a pension that wouldn't buy a decent haircut every month because it's been eroded by every government since the 60s.
Why are so many criminals winning cases in the ECHR?
Why are the parents of those in the military killed for undisclosed reasons, not permitted to go to this ECHR?
I'm no lawyer but I do know lawyers who are confused by the eligibility of this court of unelected judges.
No FC that wasn't me.
Stuart - I object to "supra-nationalism". It seems to me that when power and authority (in any area) are removed from the direct control of nations then democracy is diminished.
It's a monument to an organisation so corrupt it makes hoon Hoon and Brown's cronies seem very amateurish. There again.........
Righty-ho! A few wee things.
(a) Retirement
I'll confess - I'm having a touch of difficulty seeing the context - or the connection here - between the European Court of Human Rights and the UK system of old age pension. While the court did recently address a question touching on pension entitlement for those who live abroad (Carson v. United Kingdom 2008, if I remember a'right), there is nothing clearly in the Convention which prohibits or entitles one to pan-European entitlement. Which seems to be your complaint - and one with which I can have significant sympathy - the basic rate of pension being diddly squat. I gather that the European Court of Justice (EU) also recently decided compulsory retirement at 65 is an acceptable practice. What I don't quite see is how this connects to your primary theme, except perhaps, the opportunity cost of erecting a swanky build as opposed to supporting the older generation.
(b) Criminals & the ECHR
I find "criminals" a difficult category to assess clearly. A few points. Firstly, if one is a chap or chapulet on the street - left to your devices - you are less likely to encounter an actionable human rights situation. Although Elanor Roosevelt said that we must uphold human rights in small places, if we are to uphold them at all - the objects of state actions involving the deprivation of liberty, the adjudication of guilt &c - are simply closer to areas where the Convention makes provision for European standards.
Many, many of the cases dealt with by the court fall under Article 6's fair trial entitlements - frequently concerned with the speediness with which criminal matters have been resolved against them. While I admit, "so many criminals winning" has been a frequently presented narrative respecting the European Court of Human Rights - the sly, backhand assumption that all analysis must be tossed out of the window because one is up before a sheriff on a drunken disorderly charge seems to me unreasonable.
I'd also remind you that that category of 'criminal' is not always self-sustainingly right. Considering the case of Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, addressing unjust, prim and tyrannical sodomy laws in Northern Ireland.
As to the other matters you mention, I must say what strikes me as curious, subrosa, is that you are suggesting the tribunal is deficient for failing to act as a forum recognising and investigating these issues - while simultaneously asking that it become inaccessible to UK nationals altogether.
I'm not sure one coherently can ask for both.
Thanks, I hoped so.
Bisous
Good morning Lallands. I know little about the EC but there certainly was a connection with them and the Uk state pension a few years ago, when several pensioners took a case there. There case revolved round the halt, by Thatcher, of the index linked pension. They thought they had a strong argument and it was well prepared, but the EC moved against it because, as Indy says, the UK has no written constitution. These people all resided in the NE of England if I recall but I no longer have the information owing to a change of computer last year.
You obviously have an in depth knowledge of the subject and I respect that.
Why couldn't the EC help the likes of Rose Gentles who wanted an enquiry into how her son was killed in Iraq? Criminals appear to be able to access the system without much trouble but a mother, who had the whole of the English law system against her, couldn't. That's what I mean by saying it appears to offer more to the less law-abiding members of society.
I wasn't aware I suggested it should be inaccessible to UK nationals altogether. With the exception of the last sentence my post was the opinion of James Forsyth and I would have thought that obvious.
As you will realise my opinion of any justice system is they are never impartial although I know one particular friend who successfully fought her case through the EC.
Subrosa if we stick with Europe in its current quest for more control then they will have us working 4 hours a day, 3 days a week with 7 months worth of holidays.
Its true what you say, the criminals have it easy with this lot, it was Europe that cost the Scottish and UK gov millions of pounds when some of the thugs complanined to Europe about having to slop out, a breach of their human rights apperntly!! shame about the victums as you say..
Read Iain Dales blog, i think i saw a poll that said 70% of the UK would rather stick with the USA than Europe.
I read Iain Dale's blog Spook and I'm not convinced we should be going the US way any more than I'm convinced about the Europe way. At present I'm thinking we should be going along the lines of Switzerland and Norway etc but I've to do a lot more research before I finally come to a decision.
Advance Media Watch, you are conflating any number of things. I wonder, in the absence of detail, how you feel comfortable alleging that "criminals have it easy with this lot". While a separate debate may be had about prison conditions - you are writing yon indictment with a breadth which diffuses legitimacy of criticism rather than re-enforcing it.
(a) Slopping Out
It is worth reflecting that the "slopping out" judgement which set the cat among the pigeons was delivered by a Scottish judge - Lord Bonomy - but you are right, the basis for the decision was Article 3 of the ECHR. Moreover, as has not always been made clear in the analysis afterwards, Bonomy refers to the cumulative factors which, in his judgement, pushed its general severity into the ambit of Article 3 - overcrowding, the toilet provisions and general regime of the prison. There have also been subsequent cases dealing with the matter in Strasbourg - your characterisation of it as 'complaining to Europe' - and per se illegitimate or dodgy - can't terribly cleanly apply.
As I said, I'm pleased to talk about and listen to substantive criticism of decisions - but the weight of generalising platitudinous gurning which goes on about these institutions ought not to be indulged.
You know what i wonder is has any of you knobs have ever sat in a cell or been charged with something you didn't do...
Obviously not has you don't live in the real world...you wouldn't know what to do in the real world.
the real world would sh#t you lot up.. as you cant log off
Why don't you take a job as a prison screw and treat all the prisoners like Sh#t...only bit of advice i would give is mind your back as in a community with nothing to lose things can get very dangerous for those employed to keep control...
AMW
But thats the normal working conditions for the Tory party big wigs and the rich backers.whats wrong with ever body else having some?
Now just which gang of Westminster heroes do you wish to revise and re-enact protection of human rights? Labour led by Peedie Jack Squealer Straw or whichever Tory gets the Ministry of terror portfolio? Reading the foregoing comments on your blog, I might just leave well enough alone.
Richard did you read the Spectator article about Dominic Grieve?
Oh by the way Niko, I take offence at you calling me a knob. You seem to be quite happy at taking a pension of which is half courtesy of the taxpayer. Who's the knob? My pensions come from being self employed for many years.
Subroas, I did and he's as bad as the rest of them. The Tories instinct is to support authority which is why throughout all the erosion of civil liberties undertaken by labour they have with a few honourable exceptions been on the government's side.
Slopping out is a breach of human rights. Let’s be clear about what slopping out meant. It meant that 2 or more men sharing a cell had to go to the toilet in front of each other. Not just during the night – in a lot of prisons the men were locked up for more than half the day as well and not allowed out to use the toilet.
Surely everyone can agree that is unacceptable. Even if those men had been found guilty of an offence it was unacceptable – it is not a luxury to have privacy when going to the toilet, it is basic decency and even prisoners are entitled to that. And of course many prisoners who had to slop out were on remand. They had not been found guilty of any offence.
That does not mean to say that it is sensible to pay out millions of pounds in compensation. Of course it is not, that is ridiculous and demonstrates massive incompetence on the part of government. It would have been more sensible to end the practice. But the government did not do so and, as Lallans Peat Worrier has pointed out, the decision to award compensation was not made by the EC, it was made by a Scottish judge after prisoners at Barlinnie took the Lab/Lib Scottish Executive to court.
You put it far better than me Richard. I was taken aback by Grieve's maiden speech as I hadn't read it before. Of course our justice system is another old boys and gals network.
Post a Comment